Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Bushranger (talk | contribs) at 03:55, 26 April 2013 (→LittleBenW violating his TBAN again...: collapsing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

DBrodbeck implies there is a rule against primary sources in medical articles

It's a long story but some years back I wanted to edit either Autism or Causes of Autism articles to include the theory of maternal antibodies to fetal brain being one of the causes of autism. I was told the citation I used were not allowed in Medicine releated articles. I went and looked at the rules at the link I was given and they did not say primary sources were forbidden, in fact they gave rules under which they were to be used. I went back and tried to point out the edits were allowed as long as the rules for primary sources were not violated. I did this by directly quoting the rules. No one tried to dispute the quoted rules, but after a time the quoted rules were removeed and some editors continued to tell new people wanting to do edits that their edits were forbidden for the same reason, ie, not based on secondary sources.. (review papers in peer reviewed journals, mine and others were based on primary papers in peer reviewed journals) It's important I think to understand that the actual CONTENT of the papers, the theory that maternal antibodies to certain fetal brain proteins are highly associated with autism and are strongly suspected of causing it, does not seem to be at all controversial. I have not seen a single paper anywhere disputing either this theory, (the subject of independent supporting research from Oxford, John's Hopkins, Kennedy Krieger and UC Davis). Now there are many more papers supporting this theory than there were when I first asked it be included, and some are secondary reviews. But DBrodbeck seems to have taken offense at my comments and objects to everything, in my opinion on spurious grounds, and someone erases all discussion, even that which has never been refuted or even disputed, even if it involves new support for the suggested edit. I feel this is not done in good faith and frankly is just a power struggle now, because of anger that I challenged the claims that were being made about the rules forbidding primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to open an WP:RFC on the article talkpage and make your point - especially as it relates to medical issues. You'll not find the ability to "challenge" any of the policies in this location. (By the way, having studied ASD, the above is highly controvertial, so good luck) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This issue of use of primary sources in medical pages is an ongoing problem. There are a number of editors who feel particularly strongly against their inclusion. This can be seriously problematic with rare diseases where virtually all the literature concerning the topic is primary sources. They rarely merit inclusion in more prestigous review articles: even if included these rarely do more than mention these diseases. For well known sugjects eg lung cancer it is not unreasonable to insist on secordy sources only. For rare diseases this prohibition is unreasonable. Autism is a well studied subject: unfortunately there is not a lot of usable information concerning its cause(s). For this reason there is a lot of rather speculative material in the literature on the subject. In a case like this I would be relucant to include this material in the main article unless these finding were reported by other investigators independently. On the other hand if it were to be included in a seperate linked page with a tile such as "Theories of causation of autism" (or perhaps something more suscinct) its inclusion there might well be reasonable. DrMicro

This particular IP has a long history of disruptive involvement at autism-related articles, please see WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP as well as the histories of the autism and causes of autism articles and their Talk pages. Zad68 17:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I was supposed to be notified about this wasn't I? Anyway, it seems to me that bringing in primary sources without looking at how a review has, umm, reviewed them makes us have to look at something as experts. Now, there seems to be a review out, which I was discussin gat the Causes of autism page with this IP. It does seem to be early days for it though . I think the IP could do without posting copyright violations and the personal attacks (see my talk page history, and the history at

As the IP mentioned, there are indeed now a few relevant acceptable secondary sources covering this theory, I found 2 review articles from 2012. There is no need to resort to trying to interpret the WP:RULES to use WP:PRIMARY to cover the desired content. Accordingly I have added mention of this theory to the Causes of autism article here. Hopefully that should cover this content issue. Zad68 18:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that mentioning it is fine, as we were coming to that as I noted above. I do wish this IP would learn the most basic rules around here, like signing their posts, for starters. I encourage everyone to, carefully, look at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IPDbrodbeck (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want more conflict but some things said in response here need to be cleared up. First, as to including this theory in "Causes of Autism" we were not "coming to that as I noted above" as DBrodbeck claims, On the contrary, he was deleting every post I made on the Talk page for that article, even if they included new citations, even after they included new secondary source citations. Without any discussion whatsoever. It was this complete refusal to dialogue which led me to the extreme measure of coming here to complain. As to my not revealing myself, very soon after I discovered the rules on primary sources were being misrepresented, and complained about it, some editors started to discuss how to ban me. Of course I was offended by that. Tell me I am wrong about the rules, tell me there is consensus against the suggested edit, tell em whatever, but if you can't refute that you misrepresented the rules, then apologize, don't try to keep other people from seeing the discussion by banning one side of it. As to copyright violations, I am not sure there are any, I did Cut and Paste part of the web page of INSAR to support the theory, but not I not suree it's copyrighted, and certainly it could be parapharased, so that is being kind of overblown as an issue. Hopefully this is all resolved but I am not sure if DBrodbeck has special revert privileges if he should retain them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the diff I have posted above 'A quote from page 1332 of the article in question "What cannot be demonstrated in the human subjects is whether these antibodies cause autism. To marshal support in favor of this hypothe- sis, it is necessary to move to experimental animal studies". It is early days in this, according to this one review. I would like to see what others think besides our IP. ' As you have been pushing this theory for so long I was waiting for input from others. I then asked some editors who are more experienced than I am in medical articles to take a look , and . Please stop misrepresenting what I was doing, learn how to sign your posts (you have been doing this since 2009) and learn how to indent. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

And to close this loop: I happened to have several of those User Talk pages that Dbrodbeck linked to on my Watchlist, so I saw his requests go out. I saw the responses from Colin and Anthonyhcole (two experienced editors I'm familiar with from doing work on articles in WP:MED scope), looked at the referenced articles and agreed the review articles were sufficient for a mention, so the content went in earlier today. I think behavior-wise, Dbrodbeck did everything right here, given the history at the article Talk page and the consensus developed at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP for how to deal with the disruptive IP.

Regarding the IP, I think it's a case of The Boy Who Cried Wolf mixed in with what has come across as WP:SPAM suggestions ("University of California is involved in a partnership to develop and market the test and refer to the Pediatric Bioscience web page describing the test"). For a very long time - for years, it appears - per Misplaced Pages standards, there was clear consensus that there was absolutely insufficient sourcing for the kind of content the IP was proposing, and during that time, the IP kept beating on the drum with insufficient sourcing so hard that nobody had the patience to listen any more, to the point that there was consensus to ignore the IP. Sufficient sourcing worth a brief mention was finally published in 2012, and brought to Talk:Causes of autism by the IP mid-February, it got attention about a week ago, experienced WP:MED editors looked at it, and is in the article now. Does the IP really want to investigate editor behavior further here? Zad68 21:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

To answer that last question I don't wish to get into a fight with anyone, I never did. But it would be nice if everyone involved would acknowledge the rules don't forbid primary sources. I think part of the problem was, very frankly, a lot of editors know less than i do about the subject because they did not research it very much. Wikipediar allows anyone to edit, that's part of the ground rules but really, just because it's allowed, doesn't mean it's a great idea. This is anb inmportant point because people seemed to want to reject research they had not heard of just because they had not heard of it, and that could exclude a lot of recent research that basically no one in the field has any doubt is valid, when the purpose of the more restrictive rules on primary sources is not to keep out the msot recent research, just to protect reliability. It's a lot easier to say "No" than to read up on the subject, but I did not ask anyone to become an expert just leave valid edits alone. I don't care about the past, and in fact I left out a lot of cursing on the part of some, I just hope people will be mindful of this in the future. I had not seen you before at all Zad68, not sure why you are taking up the banner on the other side but let's drop it. Except that the edit could be stronger, there is more than just one group looking into this now, as I say it's got a lot of confirmation, (animal testing in multiple studies, which few possible causes have actually I should explain something else. My son is autistic, and some of the researchers into maternal antibodies have told me it's nearly positive it's related to his Mom's antibodies. Generally if no clear genetic cause is found parents are told by pediatricians that no one knows why anyone or nearly anyone, is autistic and that there is not too much risk of a subsequent child being autistic. But in the case of the mothers who have these antibodies, this is not at all true. All my long struggle to get it included in the aritcle is just so the parents with one autistic child can get some warning. I love my son but I don't think i could handle two autistic kids. We got warning that everyone should have I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.223.184 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

When will you learn to indent your entries and sign them? Anyway, you know, my son has autism as well, and as for my knowledge, I have a PhD in psychology, but, that is neither here nor there. Arguments from authority will get you nowhere here. It is hard for me to acknowledge that I broke some sort of rule when I have followed policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a place to "spread the word" about something, no matter how important the subject may be. WP:ADVOCACY, WP:RGW. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

To be sure, it's not like the IP hasn't been shown the proper policy pages. The IP has been shown WP:ADVOCACY before, at least as recently as 22 Dec 2012 here. I didn't offhand find a link to WP:RGW but the IP has seen WP:SOAPBOX at least several times, for example 17 Dec 2009, 19 Feb 2010 for a few older examples and plenty of more recent ones. A quick survey of the last few years of Talk:Autism show the most popularly linked-to policy or guideline page is by far WP:MEDRS, over 100 times (can't be 100% sure they were all directed to the same person behind all the IPs due to the dynamic IP hopping and the way Misplaced Pages Talk pages are threaded, but it's up there). Second place is WP:UNDUE (about 30), third place is WP:RECENTISM (about 15). And this is just at Talk:Autism, I didn't do Talk:Causes of autism. So making sure the IP is aware of the appropriate policy pages isn't the issue. Zad68 02:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, I'm genuinely very sorry your family has been touched by autism. From what I understand it's a very difficult thing to deal with, and I get why you'd want to use Misplaced Pages to get the word out about something that you feel has helped you. Because you asked: the reason I got involved here is because I feel it will help Misplaced Pages content development (indirectly) by freeing up the editing time of those who have had to argue with you in defending Autism and related articles from your inappropriate content change suggestions. Those editors would have been working on more productive things. I am not going to link to policy pages because I know you've seen them all before, and it has not changed your editing behavior, so I know it's pointless. All I can point to is the fact that your interpretation of Misplaced Pages content policy has proven over and over to be out of line with consensus.

An ANI discussion like this one can deal with behavior issues and not content issues. Administrators can block users, protect pages, and delete pages. What administrator action are you asking for? You do not appear to be interested in having a page protected or deleted. Do you want a user blocked, or some other action? If so, what, and for what reason? Please provide diffs and the relevant behavior-related policy or guideline pages to support your argument. Zad68 03:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone sounds conciliatory but they are missing the point. As the title of this section indicates, the rules were being misrepresented. Can I simply ask DBrodbeck, have you stated to some editors that primary sources, that is, peer reviewed papers, are forbidden by Misplaced Pages rules? Is it now your understanding they are not if used correctly? Will you in the future be careful not to convey the impression primary sources are forbidden, instead stating you PREFER to use only secondary sources? If you can agree to all that this is done as far as I am concerned, but the fact is, I did not do anything forbidden, I complained about misrepresentation of the rules. In fact, the actual value of the content, ie, should the research on maternal antibodies be in the articles, was never really debated, because instead of discussing it, I kept getting "forbidden by Misplaced Pages rules", when that was not true. I think if edits are not forbidden, and there is an attempt to discuss them in good faith which is not met with good faith, then the editor not acting in good faith should not have special powers. I saw something on DBrodbeck's page indicating he has some kind of special Revert powers. I don't think that is appropriate for him to have if he does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The content rules are not being misrepresented. Dbrodbeck understands the sourcing rules correctly. Your view of the content rules is not the consensus view, and there will be no further attempt to explain that to you here because you've shown your persistent unwillingness to accept it, so there's no point in trying. Dbrodbeck was not given special revert powers. What happened at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP was that it was determined that your continued persistent attempts to edit with your erroneous understanding of the content rules had become so disruptive that everyone, including Dbrodbeck, was given permission to revert your edits without discussion. That decision still stands and you are not generating any support here to overturn it. Your bringing this to ANI certainly isn't helping your case. Is there anything else? Zad68 19:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Do the rules say primary sources are not allowed in medical articles? Or do the rules give the conditions under which primary sources can be used? And if the rules DO give conditions under which primary sources can be used, can consensus act to change the rules without some official action? Are these truly difficult questions? Please answer, I truly don't know what you are trying to say when it's so vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The above poster does have a point. There is an ambiguity in the guidelines for these articles. I suspect this may be deliberate. As I have noted before for a number of rare diseases the majority of the known material is primary sources. Reviews rarely discuss these and if they do do so in a cursory fashion. Textbooks are not much better - and are probably worse. Part of this problem is the issue of space: every page has to be paid for. Rare diseases rarely justify their inclusion on the basis of space. This thankfully is not a problem on WP. On the other hand where there are multiple reviews and other sources of data on a topic these are I would suggest to be preferred. Topics such as lung cancer and myocardial infarct have books devoted to them alone. Autism - the topic that started this thread - is a well reviewed topic and it well covered in many books and articles. For this reason IMHO secondary sources are to be preferred in WP articles concerning this matter. Concerning the causation of autism - there are probably as many theories as there are authors writing about it. In my view a main page devoted to autism would be better if it stuck to secondary sources when discussing theories of causation as this is a huge and controversial topic. If only it were not so. On the other hand if a separate article were to discuss the theories of causation of autism there may be an arguable case for the use of primary material. YMMD. DrMicro (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I think DrMicro is probably right, the rules may be deliberately somewhat vauge. Theyallow secondary sources when it's easy to find them, because the topic has many, but still allow primary sources when the secondary sources are not available. But I think, though autism is a very big topic with lots of secondary sources, disallowing all primary sources lets the article lag years behind the most recent research. I may have exaggerated the niche where primary sources are allowed, but inclusion of them in the "Causes of Autism" article where rainfall is mentioned as a possible cause, does not seem out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Primary sources need to be avoided at all costs at controversial medical articles such as Autism. MEDRS was designed specifically to avoid the kind of material being promoted here.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• IP, I removed the section about rainfall being a possible cause from the article as it was based on a single highly speculative primary source. Let me re-emphasize that content issues will not be resolved at ANI. Zad68 02:56, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is the kind of stuff (WP:IDHT), that we have been dealing with from this IP hopping user for a very long time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet again both my intent and what I've previously posted is being misrepresented by Zad and Dbrodbeck. This is very tiresome. Zad first -- please understand, I was not bringing up the rainfall theory to resolve a dispute about content in the "Causes of Autism" article. I was capable of removing it from the article and posting the reason in the Talk section if I had wanted to do that. I do not think it was appropriate to remove it as it was presented as a theory in an article that is mostly about theories. Anyway, you accuse me of trying to bring up content when the heading of this section is that rules are being misrepresented. You've made a definite statement of what you feel the rules are, without addressing that part of the medical rules which gives rules for primary sources. In other words, sidestepped a valid question and accused me of doing something wrong when I did not. I hope you can see this is quite provoking to someone trying to sincerely arrive at some common ground. I only brought up the rainfall theory to point out that DBrodbeck seemed to have it in for me. He removed my posts about maternal antibodies while leaving rainfall and many others, and when asked about that bascially started cursing at me. Dbrodbeck -- you are misrepresenting what's gone on before. Basically, I tired to put maternal antibody theory in the main "Autism" featured article. This edit was rejected. The claim was made it was forbidden, I quoted the medical article rules to show it was not, I argued that waiting for reviews can put you years behind in a field where about 10 papers per day are being published, and so forth. But bottom line was, I had no privileges to edit. I then went to "Causes of Autism" and put in edits and supplied links to both primary AND review papers supporting the maternal antibody theory. At that point, YOU and ONLY YOU, deleted those posts, (including the Talk section where the links were) and refused to discuss the value of them, the value of them vs. the many more speculative theories such as rainfall in that article, and so forth. It was only after this refusal in my view to act in good faith and actually discuss content, and repeated deletions and finally a lot of nasty cursing at me that I came here and complained. I left out the cursing part before, but you can own up to it here or have me go and copy it from the history sections if it's necessary. I truly believe there was a lot of anger over me debating the primary vs. secondary source rules and especially quoting them to prove they were being misrepresneted, and most other editors were OK with me being vanquished from the "Autism" featured article, including the Talk section of it, but DBrodbeck had to push it to the limit. He seems to have a long history of angering people unnecessarily, I am not the first by a very long shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC) I am going to give this up, there is not much more to say and the fight will probably soon become irrelevant. My best understanding is the proteins to which the antibodies react have been identified and there is a paper submitted, and when it's pubished, the ob/gyn and pediatrics world will have the information, which means parents and parents t0 be will be told by their doctors, so having this on Misplaced Pages will be far less important. But I would ask all to consider the possibility the Autism article actually has suffered by the editors extreme efforts to protect it. For example, it does not, or did not, say unambiguously in plain language that there are many causes for autism. I tried to get that in a couple of years back, when basically all scientists agreed already, and got a bunch of resistance. So, Misplaced Pages was way out of date because a rather small clique of editors kept it out ot date. I can bring many more examples. Is this a good thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record before this is archived: As was pointed out in the very first response to this IP in this thread, You'll not find the ability to "challenge" any of the policies in this location. Discussion of content rules is a content matter and not a behavior matter, and the autism-related articles' Talk archives are filled with years of failed attempts to explain to this IP the application of Misplaced Pages's medical sourcing guideline WP:MEDRS, content policies such as WP:UNDUE, and concepts like WP:RECENTISM. I do agree with the IP that if/when reputable review journal articles are published with more definitive information about the theory, we can use those sources to update our articles. Zad68 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that this IP has been showing up at the Maryland Wikiproject to complain that we aren't making a big enough deal out of mercury pollution from the paper plant at Luke, Maryland, though he at least hasn't ventured to change the article itself. Mangoe (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Venturing to change" the Luke Maryland article would be quite justified. Government agencies have identified the Luke paper mill as being one of the two biggest point sources of mercury in the state, and really a large source compared to the worst sources in the US. I put out a link to government documents, again like the maternal antibody issue if you do the research it's not at all controversial. Now I've got someone removing all my edits on the maternal antibodies even though I put out a secondary source, a book by Springlink press, Autism: Current Theories and Evidence, which beginning on page 308 states the theory exactly as I posted it. Reverted by someone user named McSly. No explanation, and as it's a legal edit no reason can be given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC) ZAD -- since the theory is in a book published by a science publishing company, it's endorsed by a secondary source, so you agree with me, that it is worth of discussion, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, I guess it's no surprise that you will not accept the repeated attempts to explain to you that content issues will not be resolved at ANI. You have provided the suggested source at the article Talk page and your comment was left standing. Your best course of action at this point would be simply to let the editors at that article review the change suggestion and leave it at that. It is highly recommended that you do not continue the same exhausting WP:IDHT behavior that you've been exhibiting for the past few years. Consider this an opportunity to show that you are willing to make a change in how you're attempting to work with the Misplaced Pages community. Zad68 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how, after 3 years, you still have not read those SineBot posts on your numerous talk pages and have not learned how to indent. Anyway, this is not the place for content disputes I don't think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I am also quite sure that accusing another editor of meat/sock puppetry is a violation of WP:AGF. . Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is simply a further example of WP:IDHT behavior we've seen from this IP for years now. Zad68 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

DBrodbeck -- please can you stop accusing me of accusing people of this sock puppetry offense? I did ask McSly, (on the Talk section of his page, not this one which I assume is more widely read,) who seems to also live in eastern Canada, be bilingual in French and English, who immediately removes all edits I make on the topic even when supported by secondary souces, just as you do, and whose page you responded to faster than he did, if he was you or if he was in some way affiliated with you. And for that you came up with this "accusing someone of sock puppetry is a serious offense" but actually neither you nor McSly denied it. You could answer right now. "No, it's all just a conincidence. He's not me, I did not suggest he do the same things I had been doing before". I am not accusing you because I simply do not know. I expressed only suspicions I have in my own mind.

You could also answer whether or not a book by a science publishing company is considered a secondary source allowed under the medical article rules. Or about the other two review papers in peer reviewed journals.

Zad -- you could answer the same question. '

Please, just forget all the personal stuff and let's discuss the rules which is why this was brought here in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not drop it. You accused me, on another user's talk page, of either being that user (that is sock puppeting) or of somehow directing that user to do something (that is meat puppeting.). Your evidence is that we both live in the same part of the second largest country by land mass on this planet. I need not deny anything. If you have any evidence of any wrong doing at all, start an SPI, or present evidence here. You have none. This type of crap has to stop. I have had it up to here with your ridiculous accusations and frankly with your refusal to follow the simplest policies even when they are spelled out to you, literally hundreds of times (as noted above). You can't even sign your damned posts. You have been harping on this for three bloody years now, There is now a sentence on your pet theory in the causes page, which is fine as it is backed by a rather preliminary review. I think we have a rather serious WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Just don't undo legal permitted edits without discussion and consensus and we will get along fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I will leave it up to other editors to look at this rather long thread and determine who is following consensus and policy and who is not. Oh and read the sinebot post on your 30 or so talk pages, it is really easy to sign your posts, really. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to point out, unless the trees or snow are editing Misplaced Pages, the land mass of Canada is not relevant, the population is. The population of Ontario is under 20 million. What is the population of the english speaking world that could be editing English Misplaced Pages? Leaving out India, the US is 300M, the rest of Canada is 20M. The UK is over 100M. Australia is ???? around 40M I think. So the chance the editor who started removing legal edits without consensus after I called DBrodbeck out on it would just happen to be from the same area is about 20M/400M, or 5%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk • contribs)

Serious claims require serious evidence. Don't make accusations like that again without actually solid evidence. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

IP, if you want to open a sockpuppet investigation, follow the instructions here: WP:SPI#Submitting_an_SPI_case. If you mean to do it, go do it there, and you are advised to stop making any more casual accusations like that at individual users' Talk pages or (especially) here. Regarding "removing legal edits without consensus" I refer observers of this conversation once again to review WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP. Zad68 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• What, if any, administrative action would people want to see here? MastCell  15:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested action plan:

• Autism is FA and is indef-semi, that should be left in place.
• Talk:Autism has seen 65 IP edits in the past year, 37 (57%) of those were from this editor. This editor's source and content suggestion are currently standing at that Talk page, so as there's really nothing more related to content that needs to be seen from this editor there, suggest we try 6 weeks semi on it along the lines suggested at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP, trying to minimize collateral damage. Range block not possible.
• Causes of autism is sub-GA, and content along the lines of what the IP has been suggesting has already been added to the article. Nothing else needs to be done with the content there, I think it should be ok to try 3 months of semi on it.

Further thought - it actually might make sense just to leave this as-is and simply RBI as needed. Zad68 16:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Causes of autism has seen 49 IP edits in the past year, 40 (82%) of those were from this editor, suggest we try 3 months semi on it, collateral damage less of a problem here.

We should also probably do some duration of semi on User Talk:Dbrodbeck and User Talk:McSly. I guess for any other areas we can just implement the strategy suggested at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP. I don't think we're in CBAN territory. Zad68 16:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for IP

Hmmm. I think it's evident from this thread, and previous ones, that this IP editor has been a long-term unconstructive and disruptive presence on the articles and talkpages in question. I'm a little hesitant to semi-protect the article talkpages, as doing so would lock new editors out of discussions on relatively high-profile topics.

I'd suggest that there is ample evidence to justify a topic-ban from autism-related pages for this IP editor. While it is impractical to enforce that topic-ban with blocks, it would be appropriate to treat his edits (to autism-related articles or talkpages) as contributions from a topic-banned user, and thus revert them without discussion. That approach would improve the signal-to-noise ratio on the talkpages without penalizing other new/IP editors. What do people think? MastCell  16:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

That is de facto the same result as at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP but made de jure. Has that remedy been effective? I was feeling it wasn't so I suggested another step to get the habit broken. Clearly a weakness in WP's open model is being exploited here. Zad68 17:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think making it de jure might be the way to go, and the three month semi? So both, is that maybe a tad much though? Perhaps if there have been cases such as this in the past, maybe they can show us the way.Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest formalizing the topic-ban as indefinite. Edits or talk-page comments from this editor should be removed on sight. If they are re-added by the editor, then s/he can be blocked by any admin, or the page semi-protected at that point. If this approach doesn't work, let me know or bring it back here and I'll be happy to consider other options. Does that sound good? MastCell  17:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support MastCell's proposal dated 17:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC), a de jure topic-ban allows admins to block and protect on sight, which is a step up from before, but still allows IP edits to Talk pages, a fine next step to try. Zad68 18:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't bother, I give up. I don't think there has been any serious discussion of the rules or whether or not my new sources are secondary or primary. The Autism article is years behind the state of knowledge. The Causes of Autism article likewise but in a way that is worse considering there is much more new info on causes than the condition itself. The suggested edits were valid. The thing with DBrodbeck and sock puppetry or meat puppetry was brought here after I asked McSly if he was affiliated with DBrodbeck. Never any answer. Not then, not now. But for asking, DBrodbeck started this "you are accusing me" thing which was not right, i was just asking and telling why I suspected. My aim here was to help get the word out on medical info that can help people. I guess I bungled that pretty badly. If I'd researched harder instead of arguing about the rules, I might have gotten this in the aritcle without the nerd police force stopping it. I screwed that up. I don't give a damn about you people but I failed other parents like myself who never heard about it and had another autistic child because they did not know about this cause. I feel ashamed of that, not offending you people.

But DBrodbeck, who says he has an autistic kid, wanted to suppress it for no real reason, power, just to say no, who knows really. Decent people want to help other people not suffer the same ways they have suffered. It's in their nature. Brodbeck actually acts in the opposite way. At least if there is a challenged to his authority.

Professor Brodbeck -- what a waste of your time and intellect. Seriously. Whatever went before, if you bothered to actually read about this subject you'd know not just the edits are valid but it's valuable information that can help people a great deal. But you're damned if you are going to give in once your ego was challenged. That's the reality. Go do something worthwhile if you know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.116 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban as well as a temporary block for the violation of WP: NPA above. Herr Kommisar 23:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

User:LittleBenW edit-warring over diacritics again.

LittleBenW has been topic-banned from edits related to diacritics (broadly construed) since December. He has since been blocked twice for violating this ban. Unfortunately, he appears not to have learned his lesson, he has been reverting my removal from WP:SET of his links that undermine the use of diacritics in the article Lech Wałęsa over the past 24 hours or so. In ictu oculi also noted similar TBAN violations not long ago. Cheers. Konjakupoet (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have already explained repeatedly to User:Konjakupoet that this writeup on how to use Google to research names in reliable sources was written in November before my unjust topic ban, which I intend to appeal soon. As I have already explained to User:BDD here, the template {{Google RS}} researches names in reliable sources: <quote>"The sources for the templates are all listed; they are widely considered to be the most trustworthy and politically neutral sources in English on the web, e.g. Encyclopedias like Britannica, magazines like the Economist, newspapers like the New York Times, broadcast sites like the BBC. If you're aware of any better sites then they can easily be added (Google permits 32 max. to be searched simultaneously)".<unquote> I don't believe that recommending that reliable sources be used and cited to justify names is "warring against diacritics". "Reliable sources" is—or surely should be—a fundamental pillar of Misplaced Pages. Surely there are no reliable English sources that spell Franjo Tuđman the Misplaced Pages way? Attempting to add the majority English spelling even once in an English Misplaced Pages article (in the name of NPOV—another of the supposed pillars of Misplaced Pages) should not be grounds for an indefinite ban—or justify insults and threats from the ultra-nationalists on Misplaced Pages.
• As mentioned in the third paragraph (* SMcCandlish "submissions") of my submission here, several people protested the lack of due process—the imposing of an indefinite topic ban and the scope of the topic ban were ridiculous: "indefinitely prohibited from ... converting any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page, broadly construed, and any edit that adds an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics"—because I think I had only once "added an unaccented variation of a name or other word as an alternate form to one with diacritics" (in the lede of the Walesa article) and probably never "converted any diacritical mark to its basic glyph on any article or other page". This indefinite topic ban was based on a single attempt (with no edit warring) to add a single instance of the majority English version of the name Walesa to the Walesa article. User:SMcCandlish got a one month topic ban for the same behavior that he used (trashing a civil discussion, wall-of-text threats and insults) to get me blocked and then topic banned. LittleBen (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you are not encouraging the use of "reliable sources". You are cherry-picking sources that don't use diacritics, and I'm no the only one to notice this odd fact. Also: you have been asked repeatedly to use the "view preview" function rather than tweaking the same post dozens of times. Konjakupoet (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• You have not provided any reliable English sources that are more reliable than Encyclopedias like Britannica, magazines like the Economist, newspapers like the New York Times, broadcast sites like the BBC. And your statement about Britannica is simply wrong, total nonsense. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be NPOV and show major alternative viewpoints and major alternative spellings. I am not warring about this; you are warring about this. It is not NPOV to cherry pick only the non-English sources that don't use the English spelling, and refuse to accept or mention even once what all the most reliable English sources say. For Walesa you can even check the Polish government's own web site. LittleBen (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Complete aside, but LBW appears to think that Britannica, the BBC and the New York Times are better sources for, say, Japanese shrines to the god of poetry than specialist books and journal articles written on the subject. Prescribing which sources are "the most trustworthy and neutral" (and, apparently, "reliable"), regardless of subject, via the use of a template is ridiculous and runs contrary to the spirit of WP:RS. Konjakupoet (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Warring"? You are the one who reverted me three times (the other one was a short while ago) You are deliberately picking out sources that don't use diacritics. This is a TBAN violation on par with the ones that have already got you blocked twice. Additionally, the specific article seems to be the one you were edit-warring on back in November that won you your TBAN in the first place. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

<redacted by neutral observer -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)>

Konjakupoet, if you're going to engage in personal argument, you should not collapse the other guy's arguments just because you feel they're personal (I have reverted your collapse now). If anything needs collapsing, please leave it to a neutral observer to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Sorry for that. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Konjakupoet edited with an account called user:Konjakupoet2 and made 4 edits between 2nd and 9th of April. On the 20th of April user:Konjakupoet made the first edit with user:Konjakupoet. Why did you open this process nearly two weeks after the incident? The edit pattern you have displayed does not seem to me to be that of someone who had not held an account before the 2 April. Are there any other accounts on en.Misplaced Pages that you have used? -- PBS (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Check my user page. I'm a fluent Japanese-speaker. Until recently I primarily edited on ja.wikipedia (I'm not telling you my username because your constant personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith have made me somewhat distrustful of you). I have also occasionally edited en.wikipedia anonymously. And I've been monitoring LBW's ridiculous pattern of harassment/POV-pushing. What business is it of yours, anyway? And why does it matter to this thread? Seriously, if you think LBW has NOT been disruptive enough to warrant an indefinite block, please present a valid argument. I'm not going to respond to you if you make another personal attack. I will, however, post another thread below this one. Stop it now. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So yo have edited under different accounts, you are trying to prevent other editors commenting on this question. I can't help thinking you may also be a part of the problem here? Its all a bit academic anyway, it looks like LittleBenW has been indefed for reasons that cannot be stated but have been reported to Arbcom ----Snowded 12:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Konjakupoet please note my question was specific: "Are there any other accounts on en.Misplaced Pages that you have used?" (emphasis added). I did not ask you if you had edited on any other language Wikipidia. The sentence "I have also occasionally edited en.wikipedia anonymously" does not exclude the possibility that you have edited also edited with other named accounts. Now it may be, that in not giving a clear answer to my question, that some may infer that you have never used another account on en.Misplaced Pages, but other editors may infer that you have. Why not answer the question and reduce potential FUD?-- PBS (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem like LBW will get out of this long enough to pose any significant threat to me, there's nothing keeping me from being honest. For 8 years until February 2013, I edited under a different account. A disruptive user posted my personal information and started harassing me at work. Basically he outed me. That is why I stopped editing under that account. And I'm not interested in going back to it, so there should be no concern about me abusing multiple accounts. That is why I don't want LBW going around connecting me to that acocunt. Since that account has already been outed against my will, I feel I have a right to protect myself against LBW effectively outing me again by connecting this new account with that one. LBW is also fully aware that my last account was outed and that I was being harassed at work, so there was nothing "accidental" about him "not intending to out me" or anything of the like. If you send me an e-mail and tell me your real name and which part of which country you live in, I would be all too happy to return the favour. In private. But you don't have a right to force me to out myself in public. I want this to be the last that is said of this matter here. Konjakupoet (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that clear and precise answer. -- PBS (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE: The block of User:LittleBenW is currently under review by the the Arbitration Committee, at the request of both the editor and the blocking administrator, and is likely to be lifted in the near future. Please do not base any other decisions on the current block. Risker (talk) 00:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have just unblocked LittleBenW because we have concluded that no outing occurred. Please note that we did not investigate any allegation of topic ban violation. Salvio 20:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite block proposal for User:LittleBenW

With two blocks for violating the topic ban already, further flagrant violation of the ban and edit-warring, abundant warnings from multiple editors, and a massive case of WP:IDHT and WP:DEADHORSE, user:LittleBenW has amply demonstrated that he holds community consensus in very low regard and intends to continue the disruptive and tendentious WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for which he was banned. More than enough of the community's time has been wasted trying to get through through this editor. I propose that they be indefintely blocked until he can convince the community that he is resolved to abide by community consensus and adhere to the terms of the topic ban imposed by the community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You are calling for an indefinite block but describing it like a ban. A block can be modified at the discretion of an administrator; following accepted best practice. When you stipulate that the community must be convinced, this is indicative of a ban; requiring consensus to modify, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 08:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, there is no practical difference between a community imposed indefinite block and a community ban, with the possible exception that a blocked editor is still considered part of the community, and a banned editor is not. In either case, lifting the ban/block would require the assent of the community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue here is that a block is ultimately the only way we have of enforcing a ban, and that if an editor has repeatedly evaded an already-existing ban, then perhaps we should block. (I have no comment on the proposal myself, as I have not investigated it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons outlined in the section above and for somewhat offensively accusing me of sockpuppetry numerous times. (Also, note his ironic accusation that Hijiri88 was gravedancing despite his continuing to dance on Hijiri88's grave.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Note LittleBen has been canvassing and accusing both me and DV of having some kind of "ultra-nationalist" agenda. If either NE Ent or Kiefer.Wolfowitz show up here and defend LittleBen this fact should be taken into account. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

@Konjakupoet, you should control yourself and think.

In previous discussions, I have always supported the use of the highest quality most reliable sources, and therefore I have opposed fatwahs against diacritics. I have also noted that diacritics have been frequently used by English writers from Shakespeare to Blake to Henry James, etc. I suspect that I was asked to take a look as a neutral observer. NE Ent is an honest intelligent administrator, also, and probably was invited for the same reason. I have trouble imagining NE Ent as a anti-umlaut zealot. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair analysis. I have never interacted with NE Ent, and I will take your word that he is (and you are) a good-faith user. But the fact is that you were both invited here by a user making a ridiculous accusation of me being an "ultra-nationalist" -- I think LBW if asked could not guess my nationality, though -- and so if he is truly impartial he should probably refrain from participation given that he was canvassed. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And here. PBS is another user who should now be considered compromised. Konjakupoet (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Tarc as well. Should 4 consecutive instances of WP:CANVAS over an 8-minute period count towards a potential community-ban/indef-block? Konjakupoet (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge, too. And Ryulong. (The latter diff also includes more gravedancing.) Konjakupoet (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Pot calling...? -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice personal attack there, PBS. If you mention someone's name in an ANI post you are supposed to inform them. So I did. LBW is the one who went to 6 different users and asked them to oppose his block. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So do you think if Little Ben had previously listed here on this page the user names he canvassed, then it would not have been conversing if he had then informed them of that after such a posting? I think you could have constructed your initial post without naming Iio, so I think my point is valid. "6 different users and asked them to oppose his block" are you sure? Because Little Ben did not ask me to oppose a block (his posting was "More bullying by the ultra-nationalists here ") -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think IIO has never voted against LBW here or on AN, and I think that the reason I knew LBW was under a topic ban in the first place was because IIO pointed it out. He is the only one who has been calmly reminding LBW on all of these occasions that he is under a TBAN. Please stop making personal attacks against me. I didn't post on the talk-pages of the dozens of users with a history of negative interactions with LBW in order to get them to come here and vote. He did just that. That is why he was blocked for canvassing and I wasn't. If you seriously think I have been canvassing make a new section below this one and ask the administrators to block me for "canvassing". Seriously go on. I dare you. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if he canvassed you because you opposed his initial TBAN? You were in a tiny minority there, but you are thus far one of the only participants there to have been directly informed of this current discussion. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I blocked him for the canvassing, as a provisional measure. Like Boing! said Zebedee above, I have not yet formed an opinion on the actual proposal. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

user:Konjakupoet I was not going to comment here, but you have implied that if I did I would be acting in bad faith, and I object to that. Just because LB has informed me of this debate it does not mean I can not make up my own mind on an issue. You wrote above "You are the one who reverted me three times (the other one was a short while ago 102" yet that is a different user account from the one which you signed accusation. As you are using two accounts you need to add a warning on the second account that it is a sock-puppet particularly as you seem to have remembered your Konjakupoet password and to be using your primary account again. -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

No, please see my userpage. There is no sock-puppetry, just being overly paranoid about security to the point where I have at some point forgotten both passwords. I am unable to post on the userpage of my other account (how could anyone be tricked to think "Konjakupoet2" was a different person?), as I do not remember the password. I would not oppose that secondary account getting blocked under these circumstances, though. Please do your homework before making accusations like that, anyway. Also, any look at what LBW posted on your page would indicate that it is not neutrally-worded. He accused me of being an ultra-nationalist despite never having even interacted with me on a talk page. And it was most certainly canvassing, as that is what he has been blocked for. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Why can not write a message on User:Konjakupoet2? -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite block - this editor has worn the community's patience to a nub, and his continued refusal to listen on this issue means he is a negative to the project. I don't think this rises to ban level yet, but a block of indefinite length is called for until he understands what is required of him to return to editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I can understand if he has exhausted your patience and you would support a ban, but how have you assessed what the "community's patience" is (as I doubt that 1% of active users will comment here)? -- PBS (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Community consensus gathered against him at least four times (here, here, here and here). This one actually saw him get a "final warning", so he should be taken as having been on thin ice since the start of March. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked the The Bushranger a question! Why did you Konjakupoet consider it necessary to answer for The Bushranger? I think it would be a good idea, having presented your concerns, that you now refrain from participating in this ANI unless you are asked a specific question. -- PBS (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support and consider him community banned, continued BATTLEGROUND behaviour and repeated incivility. hmssolent\ _{ship's log} 09:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support enough is enough; editor has been warned too many times. --Rschen7754 09:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This discussion has had ridiculous shotgun-blast charges, with too little concern for fairness. Anybody who has behaved hyperactively should go away, and let calm persons discuss this. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

So you think LBW, who responded to the thread by calling me names in six different places, should refrain from posting here? Please provided a valid argument as to why LBW should not be indeffed, rather than more ad hominem arguments against me. Konjakupoet (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of you should relax. Perhaps you both could strike-through your own incivility or personal-attacks and reflect on ways that this discussion could have gone better. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What personal attacks did I make? Seriously? It seems you don't have a leg to stand on because you know LBW should remain blocked, so you continue to try to change the subject to my behaviour. Konjakupoet (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:Boomerang, your behavior, my behavior, Karla's behavior, Control's behavior, etc. are open to discussion in this thread. You have been the one calling numerous editors "compromised", as though you were George Smiley, etc. I am so polite that I consider anything stronger than "sigh" to be a personal attack, of course. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Note one: Contrary to statement above I'm not an admin.
Note two: As I already have 1,588 posts to ANI, asserting my commenting here is only due to the canvass isn't supported by the evidence.
Note three: BSZ has indef'd LBW for outing, so tobe this discussion seems to be moot.
The original poster is 3rr on WP:SET and I don't see that repeatedly reverting a contribution made before a topic ban is a legit exception. NE Ent 11:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

OMG. 1,588 posts to ANI? Did you hear yourself saying that, NE Ent? That's addict behaviour, and I can see it leading to somewhere round about here. You need help. Please consider yourself topic banned from ANI for one month. Of course I'm not saying you're not extremely useful here—you will be missed—but we'll have to manage somehow. My best advice: don't read it, either. Take it off your watchlist. Please continue to edit helpfully at other boards! Once the ban has expired, and provided you feel you have got that monkey off your back, you are welcome to make useful contributions at ANI yet again. If you would like to be unbanned, you may appeal this ban by adding the text "Help help, abusive ban" below this notice. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

Re "I'm not an admin" - you should be! ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

(Cough). Glasshouse, stone, sauce, gander. – iridescent 2 13:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bishonen is an admin. Konjakupoet (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Bish is, but Ent ain't -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Re "(Cough)" - Wow, I hadn't realised I'd made even more appearances here than Ent, but at least I'm still behind Drmies and Dennis -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You may need a little ANI break too, Boing. I'm surprised Iridescent thinks my 1227 posts in eight years are goose and gander with NE's 1583 posts in half that time. Apologies for making everybody's eyes glaze over with statistics, but it's a fact that I've got a lot of posts everywhere because I've been here a long time. A more reasonable argument against my offering opinions on other people's editing might be that I've been here too long altogether. No argument there. Bishonen | talk 14:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC).

I expect you're right about that break (No, I *know* you're right!) Maybe I'll manage it before too long. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, btw, I've just realised there's a possible interpretation of "Glasshouse, stone, sauce, gander" that I missed earlier, and I'm really not sure what it is supposed to mean now. But too clarify, when I said "you should be!" to Ent, I meant it genuinely - I think he would be a good admin, as a look here will attest. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC) (My misunderstanding, sorry - it wasn't directed at me -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC))

Am I missing something? I thought it was kind of expected that admins contribute on the admins' noticeboard... Konjakupoet (talk) 14:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions are very seldom useful, and this particular one seems far more intent on "getting at" an editor than at helping Misplaced Pages in the first place. Collect (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

LBW has been extremely disruptive, and has been making real-world threats. How exactly is blocking him a "draconian solution"? Konjakupoet (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I am completely uninvolved, as I have never edited anywhere near these editors or topics. After review: the editor LBW has has plenty of chances and now needs to firmly be shown the door via a community ban. There is no need to waste good editor time any further with this. Jusdafax 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This whole incident -- edits made in November violating a topic ban imposed in December?, 3rr was violated, --is sketchy. and LBW is unable to post on Wiki due to alleged doxing, which has been kicked to ArbCom. Let's let the committee do their thing first. If the committee decides not to take action, their will be time later to consider when additional community restrictions on LBW are appropriate. NE Ent 12:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You are ignoring the fact that the edits I linked two were made in the last few days, not in November. I didn't 3RR. I should never have had to revert in the first place, since LBW's first revert (of my other account) was already a TBAN violation. Additionally, what do you call this and this?? In ictu oculi seems pretty sure what they were. The reason he wasn't indeffed months ago is because In ictu oculi has never brought a single charge against him here, but he definitely deserved it. For you to twist the facts here and claim he hasn't violated his TBAN because the only violating edits were made in November is extremely ingenuous. It's actually probably better that LBW did canvas you, since if what you say is true you may have otherwise just showed up, and I might have been forced to assume good faith despite your obvious bias here. Konjakupoet (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support When an editor stoops to WP:OUTING in order to disparage their "opponents" in a discussion, it's time to pull the plug. LBW does not have the personal self-control to reign themselves in regarding diacritics, period. That means that protecting this project - and the other editors - is paramount (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - This user has been brought here far too often and gotten away lightly, the proposal has gained even more weight in light of their continued personal attacks and canvassing of a select few editors. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - This has gone on too long. Worthy criticisms of other involved editors (including myself) notwithstanding, LBW's conduct is unacceptable. Even aside from the canvassing and the outing, his persistent IDHT behaviour is beyond manageable. I particularly object to his attempt to forge official policy through the use of search templates. Underhanded, biased, and deliberate. Enough is enough. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support. This is at least the third significant breach of LittleBen's topic ban. It is clear that we cannot trust this editor to honour it himself, therefore it behooves the community to separate him from the project until such time as he is willing to step away from this topic area. There is a veritable alphabet soup of reasons why this editor should be blocked, including IDHT, TE, CANVASS, BATTLEGROUND. I haven't looked into the outing accusations above, but I am aware of LittleBen's attempts last fall to entice another editor under an arbcom enforced diacritics topic ban to break it. I think it is obvious that the community has wasted entirely too much time on this editor. Resolute 15:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. LittleBenW, from my observations, has failed to behave in a collegial manner and he has broken numerous policies. Enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Let it run Given the history of the December ban, Note to closing admin: let this run, as long as comments remain on point and there is no present need to close, quickly -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

*Support - Do not indefinite block, but block for two weeks to a month. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but preventative. Two weeks is double the last block and the editor should have to file a promissory note or something to refrain from breaking it again or face a full-on indefinite ban until such a time as the matter can be safely resolved. Then after some time the appeal of the topic-ban can begin. This matter is annoying, but not a severe concern and Misplaced Pages has severe issues with policies around diacritics. Other editors should file an RFC to clear the matter up in the mean time and try and work towards establishing a policy or guideline. This editor is not the singular example of this problem, there is no need to make an example OUT of him. In light of the evidence, I change to support.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is preventative: it prevents anyone being outed, attacked or such by this user, which is a common practice of theirs. It also prevents users/sysops/whoever from having to waste further time on discussing their actions. I fail to see how this is "not a severe concern". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Lukeno94 -- outing is very serious, and he threatened to do it numerous times, including on his own talk page after getting the canvassing block. This is not "just about diacritics" anymore. LBW is a dangerous user who has been "stealth-appealing" his TBAN for quite some time because he knows the community will never let him off the hook. Konjakupoet (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Threats to out and other issues, namely trying to learn who blocked his email account is a major concern. I change my !vote to support. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Disregard. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. A major case of extreme disruption exhausting the community's patience. He's already been blocked and he should not return under nearly any circumstance.--Cúchullain /c 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• I see they have already been indef'd, but we need to quit paring down the number of people allowed to edit. WP is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not as it is now, the encyclopedia who only some can edit. Apteva (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  In all reality, Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone who follows policy can edit. This user did not follow policy, even after having been warned several times about it, so he was blocked. TCN7JM 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  Studies have indicated that WP acts like a small clique who only allows those who conform to a confusing labyrinth of rules are allowed to participate. In fact the model that we want is for anyone and everyone on the planet to click "edit" any time they see something that would be useful to add. It is frankly our problem that we tolerate a lot of the behavior that we complain about and then use as a rationale for chastising someone. We only have one tool in our toolbelt - blocking someone. That clearly is not what we need. For example, deleting and oversighting offensive remarks would probably work better than deciding whether those remarks deserved a block. We need something that helps people learn, and what we are doing is simply not working. Apteva (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• What's the point of this? Are you seriously that ignorant about the actions of this user? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  The point is that we are not meeting our objective of "anyone can edit". Said user has quite a few edits, mostly in the last year. All I am saying is we need to do better than to keep driving people away, and being exclusionary. Apteva (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• @Apteva: I'm afraid you're confused. Our objective is to build an encyclopedia. The method we use is open-editing. When the methodology conflicts with achieving the objective, the methodology must be adjusted. Doing it any other way makes no sense whatsoever, as we would end up with a project that is gloriously free for anyone to edit, but is full of crap. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that most of those edits are actually productive, devoid of problems? What makes you think that if we hand-hold these kinds of users like that, that they will produce a similar amount of constructive edits in the future? People who have an axe to grind don't work that way. There's a reason The Scorpion and the Frog is such an old saying that nobody remembers its origin... --Joy (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• This non sequitur, while interesting, is ultimately a bizarrely irrelevant attempt at defending this editor. Misplaced Pages *is* the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. LittleBenW could edit Misplaced Pages. But like any community, there are policies, guidelines and norms that are expected to be followed. LittleBenW has thus far chosen not to, and it has only been after a considerable amount of time and effort that we have reached this point. You are obviously ignorant to LittleBenW's history, Apteva, or you would not be making laughably absurd statements like "we have only one tool in our toolbelt - blocking someone" in a case where many efforts have been made - including RFCs he's participated in and the topic ban - to end LittleBen's disruption without a block. It was his own decisions that have brought us to this point. Resolute 00:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it would be highly surprising if Apteva didn't know about LBW's history considering the previous ANI's that they've both been party to. Both have been vocal supporters of each other in the past. Blackmane (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support and remove his access to email. He's just sent me an email (via wikipedia) with a link back to this message.He and I have never spoken about anything in the past, so he appears to be canvassing.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  21:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Harassing and outing users he disagrees with, disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, canvassing users to support him — these are all signs of one thing: He simply does not know when his actions have gone too far. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If sanctions continue to be applied selectively to editors who think that English Wiki should be written in English, I have who wonder who will read the resulting multilingual wiki-speak. As I see it, the more resources the harassment community is devoting to LBW, the less they have to make trouble for other productive editors. Kauffner (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The irony here is that it was my post on the article's talk page that started this mess. And I know, what I said should never have been taken as some dangerous position that could warrant any kind of notice board activity.

An aside; after stumbled across Paul Kevin Curtis and 2013 ricin letters, I took the bold liberty to demonstrate my position on wp:blp and wp:blpcrime, through editing, and I would hope my position is both clear, and supportable; for it is my understanding of the guidelines and part of my answer to how they apply. I'm sorry for being long winded, and wasting good time here. With that—I'm out of here. My76Strat (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just tacking this onto the bottom of this thread, since I haven't thoroughly read through it all, but I've been working a lot on this matter: This is a tricky case as far as suspect-vs.-perpetrator goes, because there are some things that are generally being said without the "allegedly"s – that Dzhokhar was hiding in the boat, for instance. However, there are a lot of things we can easily avoid. For instance, I've changed various instances of the word "suspects" in the bombings article to "bombers" or "perpetrators", since, even though it sounds more diplomatic, saying "the suspects then carjacked a driver" is actually more of a BLP issue than saying "the bombers then carjacked a driver". I've also tried to remove any excessive detail about the perpetrators from the article on the suspects, since it gives a strong implication of guilt to say "Here are two guys who are suspected of a bunch of awful crimes; they have not been convicted. However, here's 5 paragraphs of gory details of all the things that somebody – *wink wink nudge nudge* – did." Echoing Newyorkbrad, I do think it's important to note that BLP isn't a suicide pact, and that it's impossible to give no implication that the Tsarnaevs were the perpetrators... what matters, as always, is simply following the reliable sources and erring on the side of caution and common-sense.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards